KAN SINGH, J.—The writ petition before us is by Shri Nandan Bhargava who is at present Conservator of Forests, Planning and Demarcation, Rajasthan, and by it he seeks to challenge an order of the State Government reverting him from the post of the Chief Conservator of Forests with effect from 5.11.62, when he had already held that post since 4.9.1961 from which date he was appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Forests on the expiry of the tenure of one Shri N. N. Sen. The petitioner has also made grievance of the successive two appointments to the post of Chief Conservator subsequent to his reversion; first Shri K. B. Mohan Lal respondent No. 4, was appointed and subsequent to that Shri R. K. Chaturvedy, respondent No. 3, was appointed on that post. The petitioner also seeks a direction for expunction of certain adverse entries said to have been made in the confidential report of the petitioner. The case that he has set out in his writ petition is briefly this:—

The petitioner who was Chief Conservator of Forests in the former United State of Rajasthan came to be fixed up as a Conservator of Forests in the integrated set up of the new United State of Rajasthan. He says that he was appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Forests on several occasions, but lastly he was appointed to officiate as Chief Conservator of Forests on 4.9.61*, on the vacancy caused when the tenure of appointment of Shri N. N. Sen came to an end on 3.9.61. The matter of appointment to the post of Chief Conservator of Forests, the petitioner maintains, was governed by the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the "Rules", and under Rule 7(ii) the Government was bound to promote the petitioner who alone fulfilled the required qualifications for being promoted to the post of Chief Conservator of Forests in substantive capacity. Taking his stand on Rule 7(ii) the petitioner submits that there was no provision for making an officiating appointment and to all intents and purposes, according to him, he was a substantive appointee to the post. He points out that Rule 28, which provides for emergent temporary appointments could not govern his case as the vacancy against which he was appointed was not a temporary, but a permanent one. The petitioner claims that as he had acquired a right to hold the post of the Chief Conservator of Forests, the Government could not have reverted him and the reversion, as it has visited him with evil consequences, was rendered to be one in the nature of reduction in rank within the meaning of Art. 311 of the Constitution and as this was ordered in contravention of the Rules, without affording him an opportunity to have his say against the action, it was violative of Art. 311 of the Constitution. Shri K.B. Mohan Lal, respondent No. 4, who was retired Conservator from Assam, was appointed to the post of Chief Conservator of Forests with effect from 5.11.62 and this, according to the petitioner, was in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules, as the Government had not made the recruitment through the agency of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Nor, had the Government come to hold any definite opinion that during that year no member of the Forest Service was suitable for promotion. Further, the petitioner proceeds to say, the terms for direct recruitment in such a contingency have to be prercribed by the Government after obtaining the concurrence of the Public Service Commission thereto and this was not done in the present case. Thus, the petitioner urges that Shri K. B. Mohan Lals appointment was ultra-vires and he had no title to hold the post. The petitioner further suggests that there had been manipulations to put Shri K. B. Mohan Lal as Chief Conservator of Forests by reducing the petitioner and for this the petitioner imputes mala fides to Shri R.K. Chaturvedy who was then Revenue Secretary, in charge of the Forest Department. He avers that Shri Chaturvedy had made adve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document